Jump to content

Ever see a standard on a hornet before?


Recommended Posts

On 7/3/2024 at 8:57 AM, Solo said:

So what about AIM-260?

260 is behind schedule.

260 is sized for the F-22/35 internal weapons bay. This is a massive weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Da SWO said:

This is a massive weapon.

 

So what is the length / diameter /span of the AIM-174B?  I can only find specs on the RIM-174 and those dimensions appear to include the solid fuel booster. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Da SWO said:

260 is behind schedule.

260 is sized for the F-22/35 internal weapons bay. This is a massive weapon.

AIM-260 will have weight similar to AIM-120 I believe, about 150 kg.
AIM-174B would be about 1 tone. I really don't know why they are going to use such heavy missile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect that the AIM-147 would be similar in dimensions and weight to the AGM-78 Standard ARM that was used on the F-105G, F-4G, and A-6B.  Probably not exactly, but in that ballpark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Solo said:

AIM-260 will have weight similar to AIM-120 I believe, about 150 kg.
AIM-174B would be about 1 tone. I really don't know why they are going to use such heavy missile.

Range, 200+ miles per one article.

AWACS killer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first saw the pictures of the XAIM-174B this week I had to check what this is, and it is an adaption of the SM-6 missile. Besides being carried by fighter jets, it is the same missile as the SM-6, and it is capable of being used against ships and ballistic missiles alike. 

Overall, it seems this is the new weapon against ballistic missiles mostly, for extreme long range use. 

 

Interesting to note that they for now use the XAIM-174B designation, indicating the test program isn'g over yet? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Da SWO said:

Range, 200+ miles per one article.

AWACS killer.

Put it on a P-8.

In fact, this could be a game changer for the RNZAF in terms of capability if hung off a P-8. Currently we have a very small offensive capability, this missile would give a huge standoff capability for a relatively cheap price (compared to a fighter strike force).

 

I money is on the RAAF acquiring this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Niels said:

When I first saw the pictures of the XAIM-174B this week I had to check what this is, and it is an adaption of the SM-6 missile. Besides being carried by fighter jets, it is the same missile as the SM-6, and it is capable of being used against ships and ballistic missiles alike. 

Overall, it seems this is the new weapon against ballistic missiles mostly, for extreme long range use. 

 

Interesting to note that they for now use the XAIM-174B designation, indicating the test program isn'g over yet? 

In the article it looks like it’s designated as NAIM-174B and they said the N was to point out that it’s inert (idk why they used N in this case as usualy it’s C such as is the case with captive sidewinders and AMRAAMs). Also seen a picture on Reddit of a VFA-2 super Hornet in flight carrying two of these as well during RIMPAC 2024. My guess is this is actually in the fleet now but time will tell if it is or not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, GW8345 said:

NAIM - Inert warhead but live rocket motor.

CATM - Inert warhead and inert rocket motor.

Not arguing with you on this, but the images in the linked article clearly show blue bands for the warhead and motor sections.  Also, the word “INERT” is stenciled on both the warhead section and motor.  It is clearly marked as a NAIM-147B though.  Seems to be some inconsistency here.

Edited by Joe Hegedus
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joe Hegedus said:

Not arguing with you on this, but the images in the linked article clearly show blue bands for the warhead and motor sections.  Also, the word “INERT” is stenciled on both the warhead section and motor.  It is clearly marked as a NAIM-147B though.  Seems to be some inconsistency here.

You are 100% correct sir, I was thinking NATM and not NAIM. Honestly, I've never heard of a NAIM before so I did a little digging, looks like a NAIM is an instrumented CATM and is possibly a designation for test assets.

 

Must be a new designation the wiz-kids at China Lake dreamed up (or the Air Force who is in charge of weapon designations).

 

Doesn't surprise me, the wiz-kids in NavAir decided to call the AGM-154 JSOW an air to ground missile (AGM) even though it doesn't have a propulsion section (it's free fall), or how about the APKWS is still considered a rocket but has a guidance section (a rocket with guidance section is called a missile). 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

You are 100% correct sir, I was thinking NATM and not NAIM. Honestly, I've never heard of a NAIM before so I did a little digging, looks like a NAIM is an instrumented CATM and is possibly a designation for test assets.

 

Must be a new designation the wiz-kids at China Lake dreamed up (or the Air Force who is in charge of weapon designations).

 

Doesn't surprise me, the wiz-kids in NavAir decided to call the AGM-154 JSOW an air to ground missile (AGM) even though it doesn't have a propulsion section (it's free fall), or how about the APKWS is still considered a rocket but has a guidance section (a rocket with guidance section is called a missile). 😄

Word.  The designation system seems to be kinda like the Pirate’s Code - more sort of guidelines, and loose ones at that anymore!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Niels said:

Print on the missile is XAIM-174B. Looks good on the jets 😁

You're getting old and need to get some reading glasses, that's clearly an stencil N. 😉

NAIM-174B

Capture.JPG

Edited by Inquisitor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, cheaky as you are it is not that clear. The spacings in the N can easily be mistaken as an X which is apparently what I did. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...